<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (9) TMI 366 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156076</link>
    <description>Movements of transformers from the assessee&#039;s Haryana factory to its Punjab depot were held to be inter-State sales, because the purchase orders, factory inspection, testing requirements, and manufacture to the purchaser&#039;s specifications showed that the goods were earmarked under the sale contract before despatch. The later fitting of accessories or oiling at the depot, and contractual clauses describing the supply as from Patiala or excluding Central sales tax, did not change the true character of the transaction. The decisive factor was that the inter-State movement of goods was occasioned by the contract of sale, so the transfer was not a mere branch transfer and was liable to Central sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:45:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 366 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156076</link>
      <description>Movements of transformers from the assessee&#039;s Haryana factory to its Punjab depot were held to be inter-State sales, because the purchase orders, factory inspection, testing requirements, and manufacture to the purchaser&#039;s specifications showed that the goods were earmarked under the sale contract before despatch. The later fitting of accessories or oiling at the depot, and contractual clauses describing the supply as from Patiala or excluding Central sales tax, did not change the true character of the transaction. The decisive factor was that the inter-State movement of goods was occasioned by the contract of sale, so the transfer was not a mere branch transfer and was liable to Central sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>